The Pollina Campaign (Now & Forever), R.I.P.
August 20, 2008 | 4 Comments
Oh my, it’s nice to see Vermont’s liberal elite finally catch up to the obvious conclusions reached years ago here: Anthony Pollina is a loser. Duh. I mean, how many elections does he have to lose or otherwise foul with his disastrous decision-making before the scarlet “L” is permanently attached to his political being? Well, this is his fourth and, let’s hope, his last.
Pollina, as news reading Vermonters know by now, is in the middle of yet another one of his bizarre political tantrums, whereby he proves that the only “p” that matters to him is the “p” in “Pollina,” not principles. This time Pollina is once again shit-canning his “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform” label to – say what? – obliterate any and all of Vermont’s campaign finance laws. In other words, if he’s going to lose, he’s going to make sure all of Vermont loses, too. Oh boy, that’ll show ‘em!
This latest Pollina mess was created when he made the me, myself and I-based decision to turn his back on his Progressive Party and, instead, run as an “independent” for governor. But, much like he bungled the management of his Vermont Milk Company, Pollina botched this move, too, by failing to note that the fundraising rules were a whole lot different for so-called independents. Specifically, according to the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules, independents can raise $1,000 per contributor/per election and major party candidates get to raise $2,000.
Pollina stepped in the campaign finance doo-doo when he began his race for governor as a major party candidate, thus begging for the $2,000 checks, but then dissed that party for a run on his own. But wait. What about the thirty-some-odd folks who ponied up more than $1,000 to his campaign? Send the money back, says the Secretary of State. No way, says Pollina. And let the mess begin.
While Pollina certainly has a legitimate grief that the law as interpreted by the state is unfair to independents, he also should have made sure he knew the rules before playing the game. But that kind of sloppiness is par for the course for Pollina’s political career (quick, name something he’s actually succeeded at…time’s up).
But there are far bigger issues here than Pollina’s latest tantrum. By declaring that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules are not accurate, Pollina is saying that there are no campaign finance rules due to the fact that – buckle your seatbelts, folks – the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Vermont’s campaign finance law and Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the Vermont legislature’s attempts to remedy them.
The result? Pollina thinks anarchy should rule, as in: There are no rules. But the Secretary of State’s office thinks that the previously enacted rules should be enforced, as in: $2,000 contribution limits for major party candidates and $1,000 limits for independents.
The supreme irony in Pollina’s current self-serving position is that he’s taking one, big almighty dump on his previously proclaimed principles by now declaring that there are no rules when it comes to raising political capital. Hmm, let’s think for a second: Whom might that help most? The rich? The powerful? The well connected? Yes. Yes. And yes. But, to Pollina, there’s nothing as easily dispensable as a principle in the path of his quixotic pursuits of (said with frustration and clenched teeth): Just. Winning. One. God. Damned. Race.
So, in other words, if Pollina fails to read the rules before making a decision, to hell with the rules! Worse, if his challenge to those rules means empowering those with all the power already, so be it. Because this is about the big “P”: Pollina, and only Pollina.
Shame on him.
And shame on the Attorney General’s office, too, for repeatedly making public comments that they would need to “receive a complaint” before looking into this matter. You’d think that an official declaration by the Secretary of State’s office would trigger an investigation. Hello? Do you folks ever talk?
But, worse, while speaking with the Attorney General’s office this morning, Assistant Attorney General, Mike McShane, admitted to me that due to the “increased attention” this matter was getting that they may be looking into it “eventually” anyway. In other words, unless the press and the blogs pay enough attention to an opinion issued by the Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney General’s office will ignore it? Give me a break.
So, in order to put an end to the nonsense between these two state agencies, my partner in crime (or, in this instance, my partner in crime prevention), Boots Wardinski, submitted the letter below to the Attorney General’s office. At the time the letter was faxed, I was informed that it – the letter – would be the official “trigger” to an investigation of this matter. Pathetic? Sure. But, oddly enough, necessary as well.
The letter:
August 20, 2008
Mike McShane
Assistant Attorney General
State of Vermont
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
Dear Mr. McShane,
Please consider this letter an official citizens’ complaint regarding the political fundraising of Anthony Pollina, a publicly declared “independent” candidate for governor of Vermont.
As you know, the Secretary of State’s office has requested that the Pollina campaign return all contributions of more than $1,000 in order to comply with what it considers to be the current law. To date, the Pollina campaign is refusing to return the money.
As concerned citizens of the State of Vermont, we offer this citizens’ complaint regarding the fundraising actions of the Pollina campaign and its apparent disregard for the law as interpreted by the Secretary of State’s office.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Michael Colby & Boots Wardinski
Money & Politics
August 7, 2008 | 6 Comments
It’s all the rage to talk about money and politics. But I think we’re focusing on the wrong end. Sure, we should keep track of the donors to political campaigns. But I think it’s just as important that we begin to ponder the wealth of those seeking our publicly-funded political offices.
Take Vermont’s campaign for governor, for example. Our sitting – and I do mean sitting – Governor, Jim Douglas, recently announced that he and his wife, a dental assistant, are worth more than $2 million and have no debt. The peculiar thing about this Republican’s amassing of wealth is that he’s spent his entire professional career as a “public servant,” working in various elected government jobs since he graduated from Middlebury College 30-some years ago. So you have to wonder how seriously we have to take Douglas when he spills forth with his “big, bad government” mantra. I guess what he really means is that government is “bad for thee, but not for me!” Two million dollars worth – and counting.
Douglas’ Democrat opponent, Gaye Symington, is also a millionaire many times over. She’s just trying to be coy by not including her husband’s wealth in the financial filings she recently handed over to the Vermont press. Her husband, Chuck Lacy, was one of the original honchos at Ben & Jerry’s back when the company’s stock was being handed out like candy and those at the top – like Lacy — walked away with more loot than they knew what to do with. So much loot, in fact, that folks like Lacy started their own charitable foundations to give gobs of it away. Nice work if you can get it.
Without her hubby’s millions, Symington declared a personal worth of close to $400,000. But you’ve got to be more than a hypocritical fool (or, for that matter, drinking way too much Dem Kool-Aid) to buy her argument against releasing their joint financial information.
“I’m running for office,” Symington declares, “not my family.”
Okay, Gaye, fan the flames of interest all you want but that kind of lameness isn’t going to make the issue – or the millions of dollars — go away. Besides, I’ll bet you won’t be distancing yourself from “the family” when the photo-ops, the door knocking, the advertisements, the advice, and the support come into play, huh? Of course not.
The simmering issue of Symington taking Vermonters for fools by refusing to release her joint financial picture should be dispensed with by two recent political examples: Hillary Clinton released joint financial statements in her run for president; and national Democrats made a huge issue of the McCains’ refusal to release joint financial statements. Checkmate, Gaye. Release them or prepare yourself for more questions.
Speaking of spousal wealth, the newly declared “Independent” in this campaign, Anthony Pollina, announced that he and his wife (emphasis on “wife”) are worth around $800,000. But if you look more closely at the filing you’ll see that there’s a pot of gold on his wife’s side that is just waiting to be handed over whenever it’s needed. Their joint income of around $90,000 last year included $30,000 in income derived from her family’s Maryland-based businesses. Hmm. Again, a nice job if you can get it. Or, in Anthony’s case, marry into it.
But the bigger issue here – for me, at least – is the wealth of these three media-appointed “leaders” in the campaign for governor. Compared to the average Vermont family, these folks are financial kings and queens. And the same is true when you take a gander at the financial pictures of our federally-elected threesome – Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch (all are millionaires).
When, exactly, will the comparatively extreme wealth of our elected officials and mainstream challengers become an issue? How long will we kid ourselves into thinking and believing that people with such wealth, and, as a result, a built-in disconnect with the economic pains that the rest of us are feeling, will do anything of substance to “change” the system? Hey, it’s worked for them.
None of the aforementioned politicians – or, in the case of Pollina, a wannabe politician – ever have to worry about that pit in their stomach when they go to the mailbox and are greeted by bills that they don’t have the money for. They don’t have to fret about health insurance or even trying to get an appointment to see a doctor (tried that lately?). They don’t sweat with the mental calculations that the rest of us sweat over as we shop for such extravagances as, say, food. They don’t stop filling their gas tank at half-full because that’s all they can afford. And they don’t worry about their retirement, unless, of course, you don’t count the worry of “which house?” or “which boat?”
But yet we continue to elect one wealthy person after another to help us deal with the issues that have made them wealthy and made the rest of us struggle. Nail, meet the hammer, and enjoy the pain.
Personally, I’ve had enough of the crocodile tears from the millionaire politicians. They can’t “feel” our pain. They’ve only been profiting from it.
Sure, let’s get money out of politics, as they say. And we can start by getting the moneyed-elite out of our political offices. Enough already.
Quick, Someone Get Pollina That Credit Card
August 1, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Yikes. Given the recent financial disclosure submitted by one-time Democrat, one-time Rainbow Party, two-and-a-half-time Progressive Party and now half-time Independent candidate, Anthony Pollina, we now know why he put his silly little credit card idea so front and center in his campaign for governor: The poor lad is out of cash. Yo Tony, credit or debit?
Yesterday marked the financial disclosure-filing deadline for any statewide candidate who has spent or raised more than $500. And the paperwork submitted by the mainstream media’s top three gubernatorial candidates – Pollina, Gaye Symington and Jim Douglas – looked remarkably like the candidates themselves. Pollina’s was pathetic (only $20,000 left), Symington’s was bland, and Douglas’ was what one would expect from a spoiled incumbent Republican (loaded).
Other than the fact that it looks like another cakewalk for an incumbent in this election, the news from the filings should focus on what losers the left is putting up against Douglas – especially in a year in which St. Obama is expected to mop up in Vermont. Pollina, for example, was a distant third in the race for the cash, despite the fact that he was the first to announce his candidacy, didn’t have a job to distract him from his run, and had made the claim last January that he had raised more than $100,000 at that point. If we take his $100,000 claim to be true, that means Pollina only raised about $60,000 in the seven months since then. Ouch. So he either lied back then or he’s been pathetic since then – choose one.
Now that he’s losing the campaign cash war, Pollina will soon be playing the campaign finance reform card. And while I’m all in favor of reining in the money chase, I think it’s more than ironic that it was Pollina who was (falsely?) thumping his campaign war chest last December while trying to scare away any Democratic Party challenger. Way back then, amassing and trumpeting great campaign wealth was essential for Pollina. But now that he’s getting his financial clock cleaned by both of his main opponents, money is bad, bad, bad for politics. In Pollina’s Hypocrisy We Trust.
My guess is that Pollina will seek to stop the bleeding to his already seriously damaged political reputation and drop out of this race before he has to officially file as an Independent in September. Between now and then the writing will be on the wall: The money will be drying up, the polls will be dismal, and he’ll get all kinds of pressure from the liberal elite to bag it or never come calling again. From my perspective, his new and phony “Independent” label was his first step out of the race. And it will make his last step – an endorsement of Symington – much easier in September. Remember, Pollina is pals with – and a financial grantee of – Symington’s husband, Chuck Lacy. We shall see.
—
Speaking of Pollina, congrats to Shay Totten of Seven Days for being the first Vermont journalist to jump into the smarmy waters of Pollina’s Vermont Milk Company. Via Blurt, Totten reported on the latest round of layoffs at the company and the dairy company’s continued financial strain. Totten also made note of the fact that Pollina changed his official campaign biography with regard to his relationship to the company after news of its failure to pay farmers came to light. Pollina’s original bio declared that he “ran the company.” But after the financial shit hit the fan, Pollina changed his bio to read that he was merely on the board of the company. Nice.
Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau tried to follow Totten’s lead with his own version of the story in the Time Argus/Rutland Herald. But Porter – not surprisingly – took the tepid route and ignored Pollina’s biography fudging and, instead, let Pollina’s mismanagement be explained away by the tough financial times for everyone. Well, that ignores the fact that there are many food/ag entrepreneurs in the Vermont Milk Company’s Hardwick region who are flourishing (and growing) in these tough economic times. Look, for example, at Vermont Soy, Jasper Hill, High Mowing Seeds and the Food Venture Center – they’re all booming.
Sorry, but the problem with the Vermont Milk Company was that it had a dinosaur-like business plan being “run” by a political debutante with no business experience. Remember, it shunned organic in a time when organic is king in the marketplace. And its first big product was an overly plasticized “single-serving” shot of a – say what? – creamie. Yes, I just wrote about the Vermont Milk Company in the past tense. Because, it’s over up there. The only thing keeping the doors open for now are the secret Pollina contributors who were rushed in to keep it open until after the election.
Let’s hope one of those more competent and visionary Hardwick-area foodies can at least take over the facility once the Vermont Milk Company officially becomes another casualty of the Pollina touch.
Pollina to the Public (once again): Nevermind
July 22, 2008 | 5 Comments
The mood of the day in the Vermont media and blogosphere was one of shock, shock, shock over the announcement that the Progressive Party’s leader and co-founder, Anthony Pollina, decided to ditch his own political party and, instead, run as an independent for the position of Vermont’s governor. But none of us should have been shocked, especially if we’ve been following the whiplash-like switchbacks and flip-flops of Pollina’s rather miserable political career. If there’s anything Pollina does better than losing elections (o-for-whatever since the 1980s), it’s waffling, meandering and otherwise just floundering in the shallow end of his ideological pool.
Instead of being shocked, we all should have felt a little sheepish about watching the latest political wreckage of the latest Pollina campaign. I know, I know, you don’t really want to look at the wreck but you just can’t help it – especially with the Vermont media covering it as if it somehow matters.
Pollina’s bizarre yet predictable dissing of the political party he had only moments before anointed as “the answer” to Vermont’s political troubles is what we can only hope will be one of his last political acts. It reeks of desperation. You know, kind of like one of those “hey, look at me” antics of the ornery child in the corner – anything for just one more moment of attention.
If Pollina were to pull these kinds of stunts in most any other political climate besides the sleepy and incestuous political climes of Vermont, he would have been relegated to the laughing stockpile many elections cycles ago. Instead, in the comfy cocoon of the Vermont media and political elite, Pollina has been able to keep his name in play despite mountains of desperation, piles of losses, and a mere small valley of supporters. Hey, it sure beats Jersey, huh Tony?
For me, the worst part of the these all-too-frequent Pollina flip-flops is his apparent disregard and even disdain for his followers (few as they may be at this point) – all while parading in a charade of “caring for the little guys and gals.” Pollina, for example, is known for getting up on his high-horse and spewing his mostly borrowed rhetoric for causes such as campaign finance reform, fighting for farmers and building alternative political parties (yes, he said “parties”). But when it gets hot in Pollina’s political kitchen, he more often than not runs for the back door, leaving his guests with little but his stale rhetoric to pick over as they realize their “leader” has left the building.
Remember, Pollina loved campaign finance reform when he was rolling in $300,000 of the state’s money but suddenly found it objectionable when it didn’t fit his latest political goals. Similarly, Pollina loved to rail against the big, bad corporate dairies that were ripping off small farmers until, that is, he started his own dairy corporation and began ripping off small farmers. And now Pollina wants us to somehow ignore nearly a decade of his rhetoric about the essential importance of building his Progressive Party.
Pollina’s political career could be summarized as one, big “nevermind.” Emily Litella’s got nothing on Tony.
The most laughable spin of Pollina’s latest “nevermind” moment is his campaign’s assertion that his sudden adoption of the “independent” label will somehow amount to his reincarnation as what must be the immaculate conception of Bernie Sanders’ political son. Give me a break. Sure, in the shallowest of shallow interpretations, Pollina running as an “independent” is similar to Bernie’s many, many runs as an “independent.” But, other than the use of word “independent,” the similarities stop there.
First of all, Bernie won elections. And, more importantly, Bernie won LOCAL elections and built a formidable movement based on his political consistency (“people are suffering…”) and local election victories to vault him to where he is now.
Sorry, Tony, but you would have never seen Bernie Sanders touting a silly “credit card” as even the most remotest of “solutions” to Vermont’s economic woes. Earth to Tony: When the state wants a “certain percentage” of our purchases, we call that a “tax.” And, currently, the state is getting 6% off of every purchase. Besides, there is absolutely nothing “progressive” about promoting “credit” (read: debt) as a solution to our state’s economic woes. But I’ll bet those Republicans that the Pollina campaign claims to be targeting will love the idea of debt. Bush does.
While Pollina is aiming for the Sanders’ mantle, it would be more accurate to equate him with the Democratic fink known as Joe Lieberman. Yeah, you know, the guy who loved the Democratic Party’s warm glow when he was its vice-presidential candidate or getting its institutional support when fending off the liberal Ned Lamont, but just as quickly turning his back on it when he thought it would be best for him, and him alone.
The ugly truth in this latest Pollina “nevermind” is that he lied to his supporters and to the people of Vermont. He baited us with a decade of rhetoric about the importance of his “third party” and then switched when he thought it was best for him, and him alone. Worse, Pollina invoked the rhetoric of being against “party in-fighting” while, at the same time, managing to diss all parties – including his own. Go figure. Or, rather, nevermind.
Last Sunday, Pollina sat and watched as Peter Diamondstone of the state’s other major party, Liberty Union, got handcuffed and arrested for trying to participate in the first debate of gubernatorial candidates. Pollina said nothing. He refused to defend him. Instead, Pollina sat silently on his hands as he watched Diamondstone be forcefully removed and arrested for trying to bring his views forward, all the while knowing that the next morning he would be abandoning his own “major” party.
That, my friends, should tell us a lot about Anthony Pollina’s character. Please, oh please, let this be Pollina’s last campaign.
Don’t worry, Tony, we’ll remember you with your own favorite word: Nevermind.
My So-Called Life (And Jabs, too!)
May 21, 2008 | 3 Comments
Oh boy. This again. The blank page, that is. Well, the blank page and the unmasked understanding that I am I and you are you. Nothing hidden. Kind of unnerving in a straight-no-chaser kind of a way.
Sure, I’ve been writing. And working the four-legged creatures. And gardening. And roaming the woods. And playing the “hello, how are you?” guy in the greater-Worcester area. Remember, always say you’re “busy.” It’s kind of a social requirement today.
But the writing’s been for others. Yeah, that’s right, I’ve been “assuming the character” again. But not the Snarky Boy thing – so don’t bother checking that old site (for now). Instead, I’ve been helping people you probably know make sense out of the thoughts going on in their heads. Hmm, that doesn’t sound quite right, either. Let’s be more clear: I’ve been writing what other people can’t seem to write. I guess that makes me a hired word gun. Deal with it. Or, better yet, sign up for the services before your competition gets me first. You know where to reach me.
Sorry, but I get a rather perverse pleasure of smelling like horse shit and writing fancy copy for those who get reams of ink for being – well – fancy. Or smart. Or popular. So I say giddy-up by day – or at least until lunchtime (goddamn back problems) – and then write-it-up for the “clients” for the rest of the workday. And guess what? Words pay more than logs – by far. It’s the American way: Bullshit pays. Hard work doesn’t. Just ask Obama. Or Trump.
Interestingly enough, one of my clients contacted me after reading my clumsy flirtations with running for political office (hey, let’s call that whole period late-winter-insanity, okay?). And when they told me they wanted that voice for their own endeavors I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the first thing that crossed my mind was being on the receiving end of “client number nine.” Well, except I didn’t have to wear stockings. I just had to have clever prose. Whatever. Since I’m not fortunate enough to be on the giving end of the new American economy, I might as well get used to receiving. Cash, that is – you sick bastard.
And the second thing that crossed my mind was the Velvet Underground’s “I’ll Be Your Mirror.” Yeah, that song, the one with Nico telling folks in her sultry way that she’ll “be your mirror, reflect what you are, in case you don’t know.” Ah, delicious. Here’s a rather lame YouTube version of it for you folks without a clue:
And so it goes. I’m a word whore and you’re not. Be proud.
As for political matters, wake me when it’s over. I couldn’t be more disgusted with the political state of things. It’s all the fucking same: The media sleeps while the politicians spin their nonsense. And on and on it goes.
It’s worse in Vermont than anywhere. Because in Vermont we pretend we’re better when we’re swimming in the same ninny-filled political/media cesspool. Consider the fact that not one media outlet is willing to cover the fact that Anthony Pollina changed his official campaign biography last week to delete the line about having “run” the Vermont Milk Co. until 2008 as a result of pressure from yours truly AND the fact that the company is tanking and it is now politically expedient to distance himself from the company he once wrapped his political fortunes in. Oops, I guess mentioning Pollina and “political fortunes” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Sorry about that.
The Vermont media, led by the laziest of the lazy, Wilson Ring (wake up!), is also deep in their self-fulfilling nonsense of anointing Peter Welch to a life-term in Congress. In case you missed it, Ring penned a front-page love-letter (or job application) in the Rutland Herald/Times Argus to Welch by seemingly declaring that the freshman congressman walks on water and will skate to a new term. But guess what? The word “war” was nowhere in the piece. You’d think that an analysis of Welch’s first term would include a mention of what Welch, himself, declared to be his “number one priority” in his 2006 campaign. Or, better yet, you’d think that Ring would think back to his journalism school days and remember that seeking an oppositional voice makes for a balanced story. No such luck this time. And we wonder why Vermont politicians are re-elected for life. Thank the media.
Finally, while I’m on the subject of the lazy Vermont media, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a much deserved poke at the Vermont Press Bureau’s Louis Porter for his shallow and ill-informed report on Ralph Nader’s recent visit to Vermont. Instead of focusing on the issues that Nader is pushing – universal health care, ending the Iraq War today, and confronting obscene corporate power – Porter took the no-brainer route by regurgitating the mantra of “Nader’s a spoiler.” But Porter cited a book entitled, “What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?” to prop up his argument that “liberals” are upset with Nader for his previous presidential campaigns. Umm, Louis, try reading the book instead of just the title. Because, if you did, you’d know that it was written by Jurgen Vsych, a woman who worked for the Nader 2004 campaign and answered her title question with the obvious: Because he’s got something real and different to say.
Enough already. I’ve got clients to service.
Pollina’s Milk Company Tanking
March 19, 2008 | 2 Comments
It wasn’t hard to see this coming, not with the track record of Anthony Pollina being what it is: losing, losing and losing. But the Caledonia Record reported earlier this week that the milk company co-founded by Progressive Party stalwart Anthony Pollina, the Vermont Milk Company, is experiencing some serious financial setbacks. Worse, one of the five farms that supplied the non-organic milk to the company is crying foul when it comes to the payments they received from Pollina’s company.
Last week, before news of the company’s troubles became public, Pollina tendered his resignation from the company’s board in order to “focus on his run for governor.” While the Pollina campaign is seeking to distance itself from the company’s new woes, it continues to highlight the Vermont Milk Company as a major achievement in his efforts to help Vermont’s dairy farmers.
According to the first paragraph of Pollina’s biography on his campaign website, “he was approached by a group of dairy farmers interested in working together to keep farming viable. The result was the Vermont Milk Company - a farmer controlled ice cream, cheese and yogurt plant. Anthony ran the start up until 2008.”
But Karla Barrett and Mark Sutton, two Northeast Kingdom farmers who sent their milk to Pollina’s start-up, aren’t impressed with the “help” they received.
The following is an excerpt from the Caledonian record story:
“We stopped shipping milk to them December 1 because we didn’t get paid,” Karla Barrett said. “They still owe us a lot of money. We got paid the base price but not the extra money.”
She said she understood there had been some poor business management decisions, but she wants to know what is going on.
“Somehow I think they should look into Anthony Pollina. I don’t think he’d make a good governor if he can’t run a little milk company,” Barrett said. “Hopefully, investors will come through and they can clear all this up.”
Interestingly, officials at the Vermont Milk Company are claiming that its financial problems are a result of the “high milk prices” being paid to farmers of late. Pollina, therefore, was in a most awkward position in his dual role as dairy farmer advocate and dairy company executive. And, according to Barrett, the farmers came out on the losing end of that particular juggling act of Pollina’s.
News of the Hardwick-based Vermont Milk Company’s financial failures come at a sensitive time for Pollina – just as he puts his campaign for governor into high gear while using the company as an “example” of his “professional” experience.
A call to the headquarters of the Vermont Milk Company by Broadsides wasn’t returned today. The person answering the phone only said that no one was available because the company was in the middle of a board meeting. One can only imagine that they had a lot to discuss, not least of which was trying to fix this problem before it brought Pollina down with the farmers he’s always proclaimed to be helping.
The real mystery in this story is where are Vermont’s other mainstream media outlets? So far, not a peep…
A Run for Governor?
March 17, 2008 | 7 Comments
Hello folks, it’s semi-official. After being approached and encouraged by many people, I am now actively considering a run for governor of Vermont under the banner of the Progressive Party. It has become clear to me and others that a true third-party choice is necessary in this upcoming election.
The only declared candidate for governor in the Progressive or Democratic parties is Anthony Pollina, and he has been seemingly more interested in playing footsie with the powers-that-be than offering a true alternative to them. I, on the other hand, believe in the importance and necessity of building an alternative base to politics as usual amongst the dominant two parties.
I think it’s important for a progressive to be in this race to offer a true contrast to the failings of the other major parties when it comes to stopping the war, providing health care for all, addressing economic inequality and celebrating and protecting Vermont’s natural resources.
You know who I am: an activist, writer, musician, farm-husband and – over the last six-years – a horseman. I believe in Vermont, especially in its deep and powerful independent streak. But I am concerned and disheartened when those claiming to honor that heritage become victims of the urge to dilute their passions in the pursuit of political power – a most distasteful cocktail that says one and only one thing to the voters: Manipulation.
I believe that Vermonters are ready and yearning for a political candidate who speaks truth to power, who will not mince words when it comes to the problems we are facing, who understands the Vermont way of living, who won’t talk about being for change but purr in the face of the same old, same old political forces, and who won’t call themselves an “alternative” but bow at the altar of the power elite.
As a resident of this state for nearly 20 years, I understand its unique nature. I understand its powerful possibilities. I believe in its ability to lead. And I have done nothing but fight for its right – and responsibility — to persevere as a leader for change in a nation drifting toward a rut of complacency and, worse, inequality.
Yes, Vermonters, it’s time for change. But that change must be led by true change agents – not the same old hucksters and political players.
Governor Jim Douglas must be defeated. He has steadfastly supported George Bush at nearly every opportunity – including serving as his Vermont campaign chairman. Moreover, Douglas has happily slept in the Bush White House while Vermonters have suffered from the presidential policies that have led us to perpetual war, to economic catastrophe, to $3.25 gas prices, to support for torture, and to a new and heightened sense of disenfranchisement from our nation’s democratic ideals.
Yes, Douglas must go. That much is obvious – just ask yourself if you’re better off now than when Douglas first took office in 2002? And then ask yourself if Douglas – or the Democrats – have done ANYTHING that has lessened your family’s economic burden or provided your family with true hope for the future?
Vermonters deserve true change. And I’m humbled by this pursuit and look forward to your input.
All the best,
Michael Colby
Pollina Campaign: Do As We Say, Not As We Do
March 12, 2008 | 1 Comment
I guess the Pollina campaign will be the gift that keeps giving to this writer-boy. It’s just too bad that the mainstream media here in Vermont won’t wake up to the campaign’s many silly blunders. Yesterday, of course, we highlighted some of the names listed on the “Democrats for Pollina” website as being far from “Democrats.” And today I got a tip from a vegetable farmer here in Vermont who found it comical that Pollina’s little video speech on his campaign website about the importance of “buying Vermont food products” features a backdrop of…ready for this: bananas, oranges and a watermelon. Watch it yourself:
Like I said yesterday, this campaign is not ready for primetime – deep in the recesses of cable access, perhaps. But not primetime.
I mean, wouldn’t you think Pollina or someone on the campaign staff or video crew would stop to consider what food product is behind him when he says these words to Vermonters:
The State must set the example when it comes to buying Vermont products and helping provide markets for our farmers. It is frustrating to know that our prisons, state colleges and other institutions are still buying and serving dairy and other products that could be bought right here at home. We need more instate processing of meats, vegetables and other farm products. We need to make investments in agriculture infrastructure and on farm enterprises. And we need to build a Vermont Fair Trade certified brand of dairy and other Vermont products.
Or am I missing something and did Vermont just become a major grower of bananas, oranges and watermelons? Heh, you never know with global warming…
While campaign video backdrops may seem trivial, it does point to a continued sloppiness in what is increasingly looking like a haphazard and desperate effort. Remember, this is the campaign that began by trying to parse the definition of “intend,” as in: “I intend to run for governor.” He did that, of course, so he could keep his radio show (Equal Time) going while setting up the campaign without having to play by the “equal time” norms of campaigning. Cute.
And this is also the campaign that played semantics with his fundraising efforts. You’ll recall that Pollina announced at one point that his campaign had a goal of raising $100,000 by mid-January. Well, mid-January came and Pollina did what he thought he had to do: announce that the goal had been met. But when some of the Vermont media woke up for a brief second and asked for proof, Pollina had to admit that at least $30,000 of that money was in the form of “pledges.” Sure, Tony, just play loose with the facts and keep pretending you’re above the political games.
And now we come to his “buy Vermont” faux pas. Of course we all support the notion of buying local. Some of us have been doing that long before the trendy “localvore” movement became…well…trendy. But if you’re going to get up on a video soapbox and lash out at your opponent’s lack of follow through about “buying Vermont products first,” wouldn’t it be wise to hide the bananas, oranges and watermelons in the background? Or, better yet, wouldn’t you want to be featuring some good-old-fashioned Vermont products? Just a thought.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” norm that many of us have seen from Pollina over the years. He wants to talk about his “closeness” with the “working man” but he’s more often than not seen sitting at the coffee shop during working hours. He wants to talk about the horrors of things like pesticides but starts a non-organic milk company. He talks about the problems of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) but is too scared to join efforts against the Cabot Creamery’s use of it. He talks about the importance of a third party but covets the Democratic Party’s support. He talked about the importance of public financing of campaigns but then ran into some very rich friends. And now he’s telling voters about the importance of buying Vermont produce with bananas as a backdrop.
Frankly, I’m not sure if Pollina’s clueless or just another smarmy politician amongst many. Either way, it amounts to a terrible start to what everyone admits is a huge uphill battle to unseat the incumbent governor, Jim Douglas. I guess he’s satisfied with fooling the same 15% of the population that he always does – and then calling it a “victory.”
Vermont progressives deserve better.
Pollina & The Dems
March 10, 2008 | 4 Comments
Please, can anyone out there other than the fawning Vermont media think anything other than “loser” when the name Anthony Pollina is mentioned? I can’t. And for good reason, too. He’s a loser. He loses elections (many of them). He loses in his issue efforts (many of them). And he even loses in court when – oddly – he challenged his rare victory with campaign finance reform. I guess it must have felt weird for him to actually win something so he went to court to fight it. Good for you, Tony. Keep that record clean.
We all know about Pollina’s electoral losing. He’s something like 0-for-5. But Pollina seems to get energized by losing the way most politicians are energized by winning. The average politician, for example, begins with a lower office, wins, aims higher, wins and so forth. Not Pollina. He aims high, starting with a run for Congress, loses, and then just keeps aiming high for jobs like governor (a couple of times) and keeps losing. What’s worse is that each time he loses – and loses big – Pollina acts like he won. “Wow, I’m up to over 20% of the vote! Wait’ll next time!”
I’m guessing that when Pollina secures his next, great loss this November he’ll be so damn energized by it that he’ll probably launch a bid for the presidency in 2012. And that could be the best thing that could happen to Vermont’s Progressive Party. Because, let’s face it, Pollina’s been sucking a lot of energy out of their movement with all this losing. Worse, it’s preventing a whole new breed of Progs from stepping up and taking a fresh shot at one of the offices that Pollina keeps sacrificing to the Republicans.
It would also be nice if Pollina would stop “saving” Vermont’s dairy farmers. Because let’s look at that track record. In the 1980s, when Pollina started saving them, there were more than 3,000 dairy farmers in Vermont. Today, after more than 25-years of Pollina fighting for them, there are about 1,100 of them left. Thanks, Tony! Sure, it’s totally and completely unfair to blame him for the dramatic drop. But it’s certainly fair to ask him why – given these facts – he’s so proud of his dairy work?
About the only real progress made in the dairy industry in Vermont over the last 25 years has been the advent and growth of organic dairying. And – as if to protect his losing record – Pollina has had NOTHING to do with it. Pollina’s new Vermont Milk Company, for example, even shuns organic. Oh yeah, feel the progressive vision. And pass the pesticides…
Today, a group of so-called Democrats are gathering in Burlington to launch a skimpy little website called “Democrats for Pollina.” It’s a not-so-veiled attempt to “prove” that Pollina is getting gobs of support from mainstream Dems in his Prog bid for the governorship. The group is officially launching a “write-in” campaign for Pollina in the Democratic primary in September. Since Pollina will be on the Prog’s primary ballot, he can’t be on the Dems’. But he could – if he won as a write-in – don both labels in the general election. If, that is, the Dems let him get away with it. Fat chance.
This all kind of reminds me of the announcements last week by Hillary Clinton that she would welcome Obama to be her running mate. It’s the kind of thing that forces that cocked puppy head look that says: Huh? And I’m not sure if it’s more arrogant or ignorant for a person running behind to offer a lesser job to the front-runner.
In Vermont, of course, the early polls show Pollina being in the place he’s always in: third amongst three. Or, for those of us outside Pollina’s groupie shadows, it’s usually called LAST. What’s worse, Pollina was a good distance behind what the pollsters only identified as a “Democratic candidate” since a Dem hasn’t announced – yet. Look Mom, I’m literally losing to a no-name! Good job, Tony. Now get to your room and re-arrange your Buffalo Bills memorabilia….
But that won’t stop Pollina and his groupies who can’t stop losing to think that they’re somehow entitled to a Dem Party primary endorsement via a write-in campaign. Chris Pearson, a Prog who has actually gotten elected and a Pollina sidekick, told the Free Press that Pollina won’t enter the Dem primary officially because “that’s what Peter Clavelle did and it didn’t work.” But then Pearson goes on with this: “People know (Pollina) as a Progressive and for him to suddenly run as a Democrat doesn’t pass the straight-face test.”
Well, yeah. But it also doesn’t pass the smell test for Pollina and his fumble-fingered handlers to think Vermont voters are stupid enough to fall for this write-in nonsense. Let me get this straight: It looks funny to have Pollina get the Dem primary endorsement by earning it with his name on the ballot but it’s fine for him to be sneaky by coordinating the write-in effort for it? Give me a break.
And there we have it: The mush that is the Pollina political spine. If he believed his and his party’s own rhetoric, he’d be announcing that he doesn’t want the Dem’s endorsement – no matter how it came. Instead, he’s taking us all for fools as he skips down this silly little write-in route.
Of course, there’s one way to put an end to all of this: A true progressive needs to challenge Pollina in the Prog Party primary so his followers will have to focus on their own party’s efforts rather than soiling that of the Dems.
And I think I know someone who’s interested. Stay tuned.
Vermont’s Town Meetings: All Talk and No Action
March 3, 2008 | 12 Comments
Vermont’s much-mythologized Town Meeting Day is now upon us and the Vermont media is showering us with its annual puff pieces and odes to the so-called glories of the day. But because of Vermont’s centralized form of government that puts almost all the power in Montpelier, none of the actions taken by a town on its coveted meeting day can go beyond the very short leash the legislature has put them on. That means, for example, that, unless the state legislature passes a bill specifically declaring that towns can take action on an issue like war, nukes or alternative energy, nothing the towns do on these issues matters. They can have, in affect, a nice debate and nothing more.
Many Vermonters would be surprised to know that we actually have less direct control of our town government than our brethren in all our neighboring states. And what about all that talk and folklore about Vermont’s town meetings being bastions of grassroots democracy?
“It’s a myth,” replies Vermont’s Secretary of State, Deb Markowitz, the woman playing the referee between the state legislature and the towns. “It’s a big shock to a lot of people in this state when they realize towns really don’t have much power. They can have a discussion on issues but they can’t enact laws.”
Ironically, the autonomy of local towns took a nosedive after the American Revolution.
“We should not romanticize this historical period,” wrote Ben Grosscup in a pamphlet entitled Vermont Towns vs. Genetic Engineering, a publication of the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield. “The newly formed U.S. government eviscerated local autonomy in favor of a centralized republic first by state constitutions drawn up during the Revolutionary War and subsequently by the federal constitution.”
Vermont’s companion states in New England, however, eventually opted for what’s known as a “Home Rule” style of state government that cedes power to the towns. Vermont, on the other hand, adheres to the legal principle known as “Dillon’s Rule,” which severely restricts town autonomy.
The League of Cities and Towns, a nonprofit coalition of Vermont’s local governments, has been trying for years — to no avail — to get the state legislature to adopt a Home Rule style of government. According to the League’s October 2002 newsletter, “the State of Vermont is tied for last in terms of autonomy granted to municipalities.”
Interestingly, it’s been the Republicans in the state legislature who have acted as the primary roadblocks to the efforts to give more power to the local governments — not exactly what you’d expect from those who usually espouse decentralized government.
In fact, the state’s top Republican, Governor Jim Douglas, is also no fan of giving more power to the towns. Despite making folksy references to his decades of service as Middlebury’s town meeting day moderator, Douglas has called attempts by Home Rule advocates to provide more power to the towns as “willy-nilly” changes to Vermont’s way of governing.
But for citizens and town officials looking to maximize local democracy there’s nothing “willy-nilly” about breaking up the near-monopolistic power centered in Montpelier. Advocates of Home Rule point to numerous situations in which the entire state legislature had to be corralled into approving even the most basic local actions.
“Several years ago towns tried to adopt ethics ordinances that would govern the ethical conduct of their local officials,” Markowitz told me in a past interview. “But they couldn’t do it until the state legislature passed a bill granting them that specific right.”
The City of Burlington has also been repeatedly hamstrung by the current system whenever it needs to do something as routine as altering its charter. Again, before they can make a move outside of the narrowly defined powers already granted by Montpelier, they must get in line and work their way through the Vermont Senate and House and then – hopefully – get the governor’s signature.
Nowhere is the lack of citizen empowerment at a local level more apparent than when it comes to citizens’ efforts to bring forth environmental or social issues for town consideration. While it’s relatively easy to get your pet issue on your town meeting’s agenda (all you need is a petition signed by 5% of the town’s eligible voters), your efforts are bound to a mere discussion of the issue or, at best, an advisory statement to the folks holding the real power in Montpelier or Washington.
One of the hottest issues to surface on town meeting agendas in the last couple of years has been the genetically modified organism (GMO) issue. Spearheaded by the folks at the Institute for Social Ecology in years past, dozens of towns passed resolutions calling for the state legislature to either label or ban these controversial foods.
But when anti-GMO activists sought to have their towns ban farmers from growing these foods they learned the hard way about the lack of power at the local level. In Marshfield, for example, the town moderator declared the petition calling for a town “moratorium” on the production of GMO crops “illegal.” Secretary of State Markowitz and the Vermont Constitution she’s forced to interpret supported his opinion.
“The towns can ask the legislature to enact a moratorium,” says Markowitz. “But they can’t enact one on their own.”
Contrast this, for example, with the citizen-based initiatives in Nebraska, Iowa, and Pennsylvania to ban all forms of corporate farming within their townships. Now that’s empowerment.
While discussions and education that ensue at our town meetings are nice, Vermont’s cities and towns deserve the right to take action – just like they did before the Revolution.
[Editor's note: This essay was adapted from my column in Seven Days, "Left Field," published earlier in this century.]
Posts
